North/South Language Body

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what basis and with what information and advice they agreed to the cut in the budget for 2003 for the Cross Border Language Implementation Body; with whom there was consultation; on what date; and what was the result of the consultation.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The agreed budget for the North/South Language Body for 2003 was £11.33 million, £1.31 million less than the indicative budget of £12.64 million. This reduction was as a result of pressure on public expenditure in the Republic of Ireland. The budget was agreed by the two governments following consultation between them.
	As the noble Lord is aware, work is now underway to increase the budget of the North/South Language Body.

Whiterock Sewage Works, County Down

Lord Kilclooney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the programme for the extension and improvement of the sewage works at Whiterock, Killinchy, County Down; whether planning approval is required; and, if so, when the application for planning permission will be submitted.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The chief executive of the Water Service has written to the noble Lord. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.

Ulster-Scots Agency

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why they have cut the budget of the Ulster-Scots Agency by 16 per cent; whether they considered the policy effect of the cut; whom in the agency they discussed the policy changes with; and what other factors influenced the decision.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The agreed budget for the Ulster-Scots Agency for 2003 was £1.35 million, £0.22 million less than the indicative budget of £1.57 million. This reduction was a result of pressure on public expenditure in the Republic of Ireland rather than any consideration of the effect on policy.
	As the noble Lord is aware, work is now underway to increase the budget of the North/South Language Body.

Belfast Agreement

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they believe that all aspects of the Belfast agreement of 1998 should be implemented by all parties who signed the agreement; and what machinery exists to monitor the implementation.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes; the agreement itself provides a range of machinery for oversight of implementation in particular fields and it is regularly considered in meetings between the Government and the parties.

Peace II Funding

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who is on the panel which decides how money is allocated under PEACE II; and how the members were selected.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The 47 PEACE II implementing bodies in Northern Ireland are responsible for the appointment of selection panel members. Each panel comprises at least three people from within the implementing body but independent of those applying or assisting in the development of the projects; and normally includes a representative, external to the implementing body and with relevant experience.

Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answers by the Lord Privy Seal on 11 March (WA 168), 30 April (WA 102) and 22 May (WA 95) concerning the Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Libraries, when the department was created; where it is located; and who is the responsible Minister.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The references to the Department of Culture, Arts and Libraries in my written replies of 11 March (WA 168), 30 April (WA 102) and 22 May (WA 95) were incorrect. The answers should have referred to the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure. Further references to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Industry were also incorrect. These should have read Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Boris Berezovsky

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean on 13 May (WA 29), which government departments were involved in hearing representations from Russian officials about Mr Berezovsky, and when the meetings were held.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Both prior to and after this arrest pending extradition proceedings, the Russian authorities have raised Mr Berezovsky many times with Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff in London and with British Embassy officials in Moscow. There have also been written and telephone exchanges between Russian authorities and Home Office officials in connection with the extradition request. The Russian Government have had several meetings with the Crown Prosecution Service, which is representing the Russian authorities in this case. In keeping with established practice, Russian contacts with the latter are ongoing. Compiling a list of all the representations made by the Russian authorities on this case over the past two years would incur disproportionate costs.

Russia

Lord Tebbit: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Written Answer by the Baroness Amos on 28 April (WA 63–64) concerning their representations to the Russian Government on violence against women in that country implies that they regard the Russian Government as having a reciprocal right to make representations in regard to policies, legislation or administration on social affairs in the United Kingdom.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes. We regard bilateral dialogue as a two-way process.

Iraq: Crimes against Humanity

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have evidence to justify consideration of legal action against any leading members of the former regime in Iraq for crimes against humanity; and whether any action is under active consideration.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We have always believed that those who have been responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Iraq should be brought to justice. UK forces have been tasked with securing and protecting evidence of such crimes as they encounter it and with handing it over to the relevant prosecuting authorities at the appropriate time. The UK sent a team of nine forensic experts to Iraq on 21 May to investigate war crimes and mass graves and to make recommendations for further assistance in this area.
	We believe that it will be for the Iraqi people to decide what action to take, with suitable international help. A team of coalition specialists has started the process of assessing the situation on the ground, listening to the wishes of the Iraqi people, and making recommendations for future action.

Water Supplies for Civilians in Times of War

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will seek to forbid the destruction or pollution of the supply of drinking water for civilian populations in periods of war or international armed conflict, as part of international humanitarian law.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: International humanitarian law already contains provisions on this matter. Under Article 54 of Additional Protocol 1 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, to which the UK is a party, it is expressly prohibited to attack, destroy or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, including drinking water installations and supplies, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population, or for any other motive.

Zimbabwe: Frozen Assets

Lord Watson of Richmond: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the total amount of funds held abroad by Mr Mugabe and his colleagues now frozen by the European Union.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Under the Common Position on Zimbabwe, the EU has frozen assets worth £586,910. Approximately £545,025 of this is frozen in the UK and Crown Dependencies.

Convention on the Future of Europe

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the areas which the Convention on the Future of Europe proposes should become subject to qualified majority voting or co-decision.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Annex VIII of document number CONV 727/03 of the Convention on the Future of Europe provides a complete list of the legal bases for which the draft EU constitutional treaty proposes changing the adoption procedure. That document is available on the convention's website (http://european-convention.eu.int) in the "Documents" section.

EU: Decision-making Procedures

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the policy areas which became subject to qualified majority voting or co-decision after the entry into force of the—
	(a) European Communities Act 1973 and the United Kingdom's accession to the European Economic Community;
	(b) Single European Act 1987;
	(c) Treaty on European Union 1993 (Maastricht);
	(d) Treaty of Amsterdam 1999; and
	(e) Treaty of Nice 2002.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The European Communities Act 1973 provided in domestic law for the United Kingdom's accession to the European Economic Community. It did not alter the decision-making procedures for policy areas.
	I have placed in the Library a document detailing the movement of policy areas to qualified majority voting or co-decision after the entry into force of the Single European Act, the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Treaty of Nice.

Hong Kong

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are making representations to the relevant authorities about the accelerated progress of the National Security Bill for Hong Kong and its implications for religious freedom, media freedom and free association.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We have followed closely the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government's moves to introduce national security legislation to meet their obligations under Article 23 of the Basic Law.
	We frequently raise Article 23 at high levels: my noble friend the then Lord Chancellor discussed it with senior SAR Government officials during a visit to Hong Kong in October 2002 as did my honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mr Rammell) when he visited in January 2003. We issued statements on Article 23 legislation in November 2002 and, most recently, on 27 March 2003. Since then we have continued to discuss the issue with the SAR Government.

Kenny Richey: Nationality

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have granted the application by Mr Kenny Richey, who has been on death row in the State of Ohio since 1986, to be registered as a British citizen under Section 13 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and what consular assistance they now intend to offer Mr Richey.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: On 20 May an official from our Consulate General in Chicago administered the Oath of Allegiance to Mr Richey and gave him his Certificate of Nationality. Mr Richey retains his right to hold US citizenship and is, therefore, a dual US/UK national.
	Under international law we have no right to demand consular access to dual nationals in the country of their other nationality. However, our requests for access are usually met as was our request to visit Mr Richey to administer the Oath.
	We are in touch with Mr Richey's lawyers both in the USA and the UK, as well as with Ohio state officials. Our Acting Consul General in Chicago attended Mr Richey's recent Court of Appeals hearing. We will continue to monitor his case closely to determine what other respresentations could be made on his behalf, and we will do all we properly can to try to prevent his execution.

Iraqi Asylum Applications

Lord Morgan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have for handling Iraqi asylum claims.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: On 20 March we suspended consideration of Iraqi asylum applications following the start of military action in Iraq. We have been keeping under review whether this suspension should be kept in place.
	Large numbers of Iraqis have come to the UK to seek asylum in recent years. We have provided them with asylum or protection on other grounds when they have needed it. But the situation in Iraq has now changed.
	While there remain security and humanitarian concerns in some areas, we believe there has been a real and sustained improvement in the country situation, and that political persecution is no longer prevalent. We will therefore now resume consideration of Iraqi asylum claims. As with asylum applications from all nationalities, each case will be considered individually on its merits.
	This resumption coincides with the decision of the chief adjudicator that adjudicators should start listing Iraqi asylum appeals again as from 16 June. Such appeals have been suspended for the same period as initial decision-making.
	We are developing a coherent returns programme. Initially the emphasis will be on facilitating voluntary returns. This will cover failed asylum seekers and others who wish to return to Iraq, including those who applied for or received protection before the military action took place. We will start the enforced return of failed asylum seekers later in the year.
	We have in the past given undertakings not to enforce the return of individuals to the Kurdish autonomous zone of northern Iraq via other parts of Iraq. That was because of the potential risks those individuals would face from the Saddam Hussein regime. Those undertakings are no longer necessary. Once enforced returns to Iraq are started they will be effected by the route deemed most appropriate.

Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What were the reasons for amending the draft published on 22 October 2002 of Regulation 7 of the draft Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: During consultation on the draft regulations published in October 2002 a number of representations were received. These made it clear that the draft exception for genuine occupational requirement provided in these regulations could cause practical difficulties in relation to employment for purposes of organised religion. It was decided to provide an additional and narrow exception to permit a requirement related to sexual orientation only where the employment is for purposes of organised religion, and where the requirement is necessary to comply with the doctrines of the religion or with the strongly held convictions of a significant number of the religious followers. If the latter applies, the context and nature of the employment should also be taken into account.

Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which of the organisations that made the representations to them about the draft published for consultation on 22 October 2002 supported the amendment of Regulation 7 of the draft Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 so as to include the provision now set out in Regulation 7(3).

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: A number of representations sought amendments to the draft regulations to ensure religious organisations could continue to comply with doctrinal requirements or strongly held religious beliefs of their followers. Many of these representations, both those received following the consultation in October 2002, and those received since the amended regulations were laid before Parliament, said that although they support Regulation 7, they believe it should apply to a wider range of faith-based organisations.

Human Rights Instruments: Interdepartmental Review:

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether their review of human rights will take cognisance of the international instruments ratified by the United Kingdom on freedom of association and labour rights, especially those originating in the International Labour Organisation and the Council of Europe, and of the failure to comply with various such instruments by the United Kingdom and the steps needed to rectify such contraventions; whether they have invited representatives of the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry or bodies representing lawyers in the United Kingdom specialising in such international labour law to attend any meetings of the Human Rights Forum; and whether they will publish details of the occasions on which the forum has met since 2002, and will meet in the future, and the agenda of business of such meetings.

Lord Filkin: The Interdepartmental Review of Human Rights Instruments has included the International Labour Organisation Conventions 87 (Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise) and 98 (The Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining), both of which have been ratified by the UK. The review has not looked at the question of compliance with any instrument, as this is beyond its terms of reference. My department's Ministerial Forum on Human Rights has a core membership of non-governmental organisations concerned with the promotion of human rights in the UK, and invites other organisations as the need arises. The minutes of its meetings since 2002 are published on my department's human rights website (www.human rights.gov.uk).

European Convention on Human Rights: Protocol 12

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will now sign Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights; what are the principal reasons for not signing to date; and whether they intend to ratify the measure, thereby helping to bring it into force throughout the Council of Europe's member states.

Lord Filkin: Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights is one of a number of instruments on which the UK's position is being reviewed under the Interdepartmental Review of Human Rights Instruments announced by the former Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg on 7 March 2002. We will report the outcome as soon as is reasonably possible.